Badrilal Vs Babu Lal Thr Lrs and Ors. — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Badrilal Vs Babu Lal Thr Lrs and Ors. — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court rightly dismissed, by order dated 13-04-2018, the plaintiff's application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC filed on 29-05-2009 seeking setting aside of the default dismissal of his partition suit dated 16-05-2009 (dismissed when he remained absent and his counsel recorded 'No instruction plead'). +1 more

Court's answer

Under Order XVII Rule 3 CPC ordinarily three opportunities are grantable for evidence, whereas the plaintiff had already taken about 17-18 opportunities; after imposition of cost neither was the cost deposited nor did the plaintiff appear on the fixed date, and no proper basis for the absence was disclosed — he is not, in any manner, deserving of leniency or accommodation.

Ratio / Principle

While issuance of notice by the court may be justified where a party who has engaged counsel has no knowledge of the date fixed and the counsel records 'No instruction plead' without informing him, no self-evident, universally accepted or incontrovertible principle has been laid down requiring the court to issue notice in every case in which the concerned counsel records 'No instruction plead'.

Key takeaways

In all three decisions cited by the appellant the personal presence of the concerned party was not necessary at the relevant time; here, by contrast, the case stood fixed for the plaintiff's own evidence — after about seventeen opportunities, with Rs. 200/- cost imposed on 10-04-2009 and his examination affidavit already filed — so the plaintiff knew he was to appear and depose, yet did not appear on the fixed date; his plea of hospitalisation was unsupported by any reliable medical document, the burden in that regard lying on him.ratio¶7
Following the Division Bench rulings in Smt. Manju v. Krishna Gopal and Chhitarmal v. Basanti, once the initial process (summons) stands completed and the party has thereafter appeared in person, issuance of notice upon every subsequent 'No instruction plead' by counsel is not obligatory; a litigant is expected to remain alert and vigilant, and the consequences of his own or his counsel's negligence must be borne by his side rather than thrust upon the opposite party.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2558/2018, decided 06-03-2026 by Uma Shanker Vyas, J. — The plaintiff's partition suit (filed 14-07-2004), founded on an alleged will which was never produced and whose secondary evidence was refused, was dismissed for default on 16-05-2009 — a date fixed for the plaintiff's own evidence after about eighteen opportunities and imposition of Rs. 200/- cost — when he absented himself and his counsel recorded 'No instruction plead'. His application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC (filed 29-05-2009) was dismissed on 13-04-2018 by the Senior Additional District Judge No. 2, Bundi Camp at Nainwa. On appeal, the High Court held: (i) no self-evident, universally accepted or incontrovertible principle obliges a court to issue notice whenever counsel records 'No instruction plead' — Narayan Lal Bagra (2008 WLC (Raj.) 187), Tahil Ram (AIR 1993 SC 1182) and Malkiat Singh (AIR 1998 SC 258) were distinguished, as in those cases the party's personal presence was not required; (ii) following Smt. Manju v. Krishna Gopal (RLW 1998 (2) Rajasthan 1071) and Chhitarmal v. Basanti (2014 (2) CCC 442 Raj.), once initial service is complete and the party has appeared in person, subsequent 'No instruction plead' does not compel fresh notice, and the consequences of counsel's negligence fall on the litigant, not the opposite side; (iii) the plaintiff knew the date was fixed for his own deposition, his plea of hospitalisation was unsupported by any medical record, the onus lay on him, the cost was never deposited, and against the norm of three evidentiary opportunities under Order XVII Rule 3 CPC he had taken 17-18, deserving no indulgence. Impugned order upheld; appeal dismissed.

[2026:RJ-JP:9603]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2558/2018

Badrilal S/o Gopal, Presently aged about 70 years, R/o Village Piparwala, Teh. Nainwa Distt. Bundi Rajasthan

----Appellant

Versus

Babu Lal S/o Shri Laxminarayan Meena, Presently aged above 59 years, R/o Village Piparwala, Teh. Nainwa Distt. Bundi Rajasthan Since Deceased Hence Through His LRs.

1/1. Smt. Mathari W/o Late Shri Babu Lal

1/2. Phrithiraj S/o Late Shri Babu Lal, presently aged 46 years,

1/3. Harikesh S/o Late Shri Babu Lal, presently aged 46 years,

1/4. Khanji S/o Late Shri Babu Lal, presently aged 41 years,

1/5. Ramhet S/o Late Shri Babu Lal, presently aged 38 years,

1/6. Buddhi Prakash S/o Late Shri Babu Lal Presenlty aged 29 years, All R/o Village Piparwala, Teh. Nainwa Distt. Bundi Rajasthan.

Rajaram S/o Late Shri Gendi Lal, Since Deceased Hence Through His LRs.

2/1. Bhagwati Bhai W/o Late Shri Rajaram, aged 70 years,

2/2. Jagdish S/o Rajaram, aged 47 years,

2/3. Haribhajan S/o Rajaram, aged 40 years, All are R/o Village Piparwala, Teh. Nainwa Distt. Bundi (Raj.)

Kanhaiya Lal S/o Gandi Lal Meena, aged about 59 years, R/o Village Piparwala, Teh. Nainwa Distt

[2026:RJ-JP:9603] (2 of 6)

[CMA-2558/2018]

Bundi Rajasthan

State Of Rajasthan Through Tehsildar Nainwa Dist. Bundi Rajasthan

Sub Registrar, Dei Teh. Nainwa Dist. Bundi Rajasthan

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shiv Charan Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Pareek, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

Judgment / Order

06/03/2026

1- vihykFkhZ@oknh ¼vkxs ^^oknh^^ dgk tkosxk½ }kjk ;g nhokuh fofo/k vihy fo}ku vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k dze&2] cwanh dSEi uSuoka }kjk nhokuh fofo/k izdj.k 18@2014 esa ikfjr vihyk/khu vkns'k fnukad 13-04-2018 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS] ftlds ek/;e ls oknh dk vkosnu vUrxZr vkns'k 9 fu;e 9 lh-ih-lh[kkfjt fd;k x;kA

2- fo}ku vf/koDrk oknh dk fuosnu gS fd fnukad 16-05-2009 dks oknh vLoLFk gksdj vLirky esa HkrhZ Fkk] mlds vf/koDrk }kjk iSjoh ds funsZ'k ugha gksuk izdV fd;k] ysfdu mlls iwoZ vf/koDrk }kjk vFkok U;k;ky; }kjk dksbZ uksfVl oknh dks ugha fn;k x;k vkSj fnukad 16-05-2009 dks oknh dk okn vfHk;kstu ds vHkko o vuqifLFkfr esa [kkfjt dj fn;k x;k tks fof/k&lEer ugha gSA ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k fd ekeyk vpy

[CMA-2558/2018]

[2026:RJ-JP:9603]

(3 of 6)

laifRr ls tqM+k gqvk gS] xq.k&nks"kksa ij fopkj.k gksuk vko';d gS] vUr esa vihyk/khu vkns'k vikLr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA 3- blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ&izfroknh dk fuosnu gS fd oknh ds }kjk dfFkr olh;r ds vk/kkj ij oknxzLr laifRr esa viuk gd o fgLlk crkdj caVokjs dk okn o"kZ 2004 esa izLrqr fd;k Fkk] dfFkr olh;r U;k;ky; esa izLrqr ugha dh x;h] f}rh;d lk{; dk vkosnu Hkh [kkfjt fd;k x;k] oknh }kjk djhc 20 volj lk{; gsrq ysus ds mijkUr oknh dks lk{; gsrq dksLV ij volj fn;k x;k] oknh ikcUn gksus ds ckotwn fu;r is'kh ij U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr ugha gqvk] fpfdRlh; laca/kh dksbZ fo'oluh; nLrkost Hkh izLrqr ugha gq, gSa] vUr esa vihyk/khu vkns'k rF;ksa o fof/k ds vuq:i gksuk crkrs gq, vihy [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA

4- nksuksa i{kksa dh cgl lquh x;h] izLrqr vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA

5- lqlaxr rF; ;g gS fd oknh us vius i{k esa dfFkr olh;r gksuk crkdj laifRr esa viuk fgLlk Dyse djrs gq, caVokjs dk okn fnukad 14-07-2004 dks izLrqr fd;k] fook|d fojpu ds ckn fnukad 05-07-2006 dks izdj.k lk{; oknh esa fu;r fd;k x;kA lk{; oknh esa djhc 10 volj ysus ds mijkUr oknh }kjk eq[; ijh{k.k dk 'kiFk i= izLrqr fd;k] mlls iwoZ ewy olh;r izLrqr ugha dh x;h rFkk f}rh;d lk{; dk vkosnu [kkfjt fd;k x;kA 'kiFk i= izLrqr gksus ds ckn Hkh dqy 7 isf'k;ksa ij oknh us lk{; gsrq volj pkgk] vafre volj fn;k x;k] vUrr% fnukad 10-04-2009 dks 200@& :i;s dksLV vf/kjksfir djrs gq, fnukad

(4 of 6) [CMA-2558/2018]

[2026:RJ-JP:9603]

16-05-2009 dks mifLFkr jgdj oknh dks lk{; djokus dk volj iznku fd;kA fnukad 16-05-2009 dks oknh vuqifLFkr jgk] mlds vf/koDrk }kjk ^^No instruction plead^^ fd;k x;k vkSj vuqifLFkfr esa okn [kkfjt gqvk] ftlds rqjUr i'pkr fnukad 29-05-2009 dks oknh dh vksj ls vkosnu vUrxZr vkns'k 9 fu;e 9 lh-ih-lh- izLrqr fd;k x;k tks fnukad 13-04-2018 dks vihyk/khu vkns'k ds ek/;e ls [kkfjt fd;k x;kA

6- fo}ku vf/koDrk oknh dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"VkUr Narayan Lal Bagra & Anr. Vs. Hanuman Sharma & Ors. 2008 WLC (Raj.) 187, Tahil Ram Issardas Sadarangani & Ors. Vs. Ramchand Issardas Sadarangani & Anr. AIR 1993 SC 1182 & Malkiat Singh & Anr. Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. AIR 1998 SC 258 dk llEeku voyksdu fd;kA mijksDr U;kf;d fu.kZ;ksa esa ;g O;oLFkk izfrikfnr dh x;h gS fd tgka i{kdkj }kjk iSjoh gsrq vius vf/koDrk dks fu;qDr dj fn;k gS vkSj i{kdkj dks rkjh[k is'kh dh tkudkjh ugha gS rks ,slh fLFkfr esa ;fn vf/koDrk }kjk lacaf/kr i{kdkj dks uksfVl fn;s fcuk ^^No instruction plead^^ fd;k gS rks U;k;ky; }kjk uksfVl tkjh fd;k tkuk lehphu gks ldrk gS] ysfdu izR;sd ekeys esa U;k;ky; }kjk lacaf/kr vf/koDrk }kjk ^^No instruction plead^^ djus ij uksfVl tkjh fd;k tkos] ,slk dksbZ Lof.kZe] loZekU; o vkKkid fl)kUr izfrikfnr ugha fd;k gSA

7- mijksDr rhuksa gh U;kf;d fu.kZ;ksa ds ekeyks esa rRle; lacaf/kr i{kdkj dh O;fDrxr mifLFkfr vko';d ugha Fkh] tcfd orZeku ekeys esa izdj.k oknh dh lk{; gsrq fu;r Fkk] djhc 17

[2026:RJ-JP:9603]

[CMA-2558/2018]

(5 of 6)

volj ds mijkUr fnukad 10-04-2009 dks oknh dks 200@& :i;s dksLV ij lk{; gsrq volj fn;k x;k Fkk] mlls iwoZ oknh }kjk mifLFkr gksdj eq[; ijh{k.k dk 'kiFk i= izLrqr fd;k] 'kiFk i= izLrqr djus ls iwoZ djhc 10 rFkk ckn esa 7 volj oknh }kjk lk{; gsrq fy;s x;s gSa] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa oknh dks ;g tkudkjh Fkh fd izdj.k oknh dh lk{; ds izdze ij fu;r gS vkSj mls mifLFkr gksdj vius c;ku djokus gSa] ysfdu mlds ckotwn og fu;r is'kh ij mifLFkr ugha gqvkA fnukad 16-05-2009 dh vuqifLFkfr dk ;g vk/kkj crk;k gS fd oknh vLoLFk gksdj vLirky esa HkrhZ Fkk] ysfdu ,slk dksbZ fpfdRlh; nLrkost izLrqr ugha gqvk gS] fl)hHkkj Hkh oknh ij FkkA

8- bl U;k;ky; dh led{k ihB }kjk Smt. Manju Vs. Krishna Gopal RLW 1998 (2) Rajasthan 1071 & Chhitarmal Vs. Basanti 2014 (2) CCC 442 Raj. esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd izfroknh dks izkjEHk esa lEeu rkehy djk;k tkuk vko';d gS] ysfdu ,d ckj lEeu rkehy gks pqdk gS vkSj mlds i'pkr lacaf/kr izfroknh }kjk O;fDr'k% mifLFkfr ns nh x;h gS rks mlds mijkUr izR;sd ekeys esa ^^No instruction plead^^ djus ij U;k;ky; }kjk lacaf/kr i{kdkj dks uksfVl tkjh fd;k tkuk vkKkid ugha gSA mijksDr nksuksa U;kf;d fu.kZ;ksa esa ;g Hkh O;oLFkk izfrikfnr dh x;h gS fd lacaf/kr i{kdkj dks lrdZ vkSj ltx jguk visf{kr gS rFkk mldh ykijokgh ds dkj.k ls fojks/kh i{k dks nafMr fd;k tkuk vFkok izdj.k foyfEcr fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA

[2026:RJ-JP:9603]

[CMA-2558/2018]

(6 of 6)

9- U;kf;d fu.kZ; Chhitarmal Vs. Basanti (Supra) esa ;g Hkh vfHker izdV fd;k gS fd lacaf/kr vf/koDrk dh ykijokgh ds laca/k esa i{kdkj }kjk vf/koDrk ds fo:) lacaf/kr ckj dkmfUly esa dksbZ vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh ds iz;kl ugha fd;s x;s gSa] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa vf/koDrk dh ykijokgh dk rF; Li"V ugha gks jgk gSA ;gka ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd ;fn lacaf/kr i{kdkj vFkok mlds vf/koDrk dh ,d ckj ykijokgh gksuk eku Hkh fy;k tkos rc Hkh mlds ifj.kke lacaf/kr i{kdkj dks gh Hkqxrus gkasxs] fojks/kh i{kdkj mu ifj.kkeksa dks Hkqxrs] ;g mfpr ugha gSA orZeku ekeyk vU; dkj.kksa ls Hkh fof'k"V gSA vkns'k 17 fu;e 3 lh-ihlh- ds vuqlkj lkekU; :i ls lk{; gsrq rhu volj fn;s tk ldrs gSa] orZeku ekeys esa oknh }kjk djhc 17&18 volj lk{; gsrq fy;s x;s gSa] dksLV vf/kjksfir fd;s tkus ds ckn u rks dksLV tek djk;h x;h vkSj uk gh oknh fu;r is'kh ij mifLFkr gqvk gS] vuqifLFkfr dk dksbZ mfpr vk/kkj ugha crk;k gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa og fdlh Hkh :i esa mnkjrk vFkok lgkuqHkwfr dk ik= ugha gSA

10lEiw.kZ ifjfLFkfr;ksa o foospu ds vuqlkj Li"V gS fd vihyk/khu vkns'k iw.kZr% rF;ksa o fof/k ds vuq:i gS ftleas dksbZ vfu;ferrk vFkok voS/kkfudrk ugha gS] rnuqlkj vihyk/khu vkns'k fnukad 13-04-2018 iq"V gksus rFkk izLrqr vihy [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA

ifj.kker% izLrqr vihy [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA

(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J

Mittal /24